Jump to content

User talk:Geo Swan/archive/2013-07

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


If you are considering initiating an xfd on material I started

2004, 2005, 2006-01--2006-06, 2006-07--2006-10, 2006-10--2005-12, 2007-01--2007-06, 2007-07--2007-09, 2007-10--2007-12, 2008-01--2008-06, 2008-07--2008-09, 2008-10--2008-12, 2009-01--2009-03, 2009-04--2009-06, 2009-07--2009-09, 2009-10--2009-12, 2010-01, 2010-02, 2010-03, 2010-04, 2010-05, 2010-06, 2010-07, 2010-08, 2010-09, 2010-10, 2010-11, 2010-12, 2011-01, 2011-02, 2011-03, 2011-04, 2011-05, 2011-06, 2011-07, 2011-08, 2011-09, 2011-10, 2011-11, 2011-12, 2012-01, 2012-02, 2012-03, 2012-04, 2012-05, 2012-06, 2012-07, 2012-08, 2012-09, 2012-10, 2012-11, 2012-12, 2013-01, 2013-02, 2013-03, 2013-04, 2013-05, 2013-06, 2013-07, 2013-08, 2013-09, 2013-10, 2013-11, 2013-12, 2014-01, 2014-02, 2014-03, 2014-04, 2014-05, 2014-06, 2014-07, 2014-08, 2014-09, 2014-10, 2014-11, 2014-12, 2015-01, 2015-02, 2015-03, 2015-04, 2015-05, 2015-06, 2015-07, 2015-08, 2015-09, 2015-10, 2015-11, 2015-12, 2016-01, 2016-02, 2016-03, 2016-04, 2016-05, 2016-06, 2016-07, 2016-08, 2016-09, 2016-10, 2016-11, 2016-12, 2017-01, 2017-02, 2017-03, 2017-04, 2017-05, 2017-06, 2017-07, 2017-08, 2017-09, 2017-10, 2017-11, 2017-12, 2018-01, 2018-02, 2018-03, 2018-04, 2018-05, 2018-06, 2018-07, 2018-08, 2018-09, 2018-10, 2018-11, 2018-12, 2019-01, 2019-02, 2019-03, 2019-04, 2019-05, 2019-06, 2019-07, 2019-08, 2019-09, 2019-10, 2019-11, 2019-12, 2020-01, 2020-02, 2020-03, 2020-04, 2020-05, 2020-06, 2020-07, 2020-08, 2020-09, 2020-10, 2020-11, User Talk:Geo Swan/archive/list

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Canada Steamship Lines (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Saguenay and Richelieu
Northeastern Maritime Historical Foundation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Reiss

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

reply to request

[edit]

Thank you for letting me know of the errors I made in editing John Kiriakou in May of 2010. I can understand your wanting me to revisit all the edits I have made to check for other errors!

Best wishes. Kgrad (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Amalia Marquez (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Robert Marshall
Don Juan Matus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Robert Marshall
Satu Repo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Free school
Vincenzo Pietropaolo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Between the Lines

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toiseach

[edit]

Just so you know, we actually already had an article on the topic — but it's at the spelling taoiseach rather than "toiseach". I'm sure there are other ways that the word has been spelled in different sources too, but they should all be redirects to a common spelling rather than having separate articles for each one. Bearcat (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I incorporated the references I found into the existing article's origins section. Geo Swan (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long Branch Loop

[edit]

See Long Branch Loop. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am aware of it. It uses the technique of a redirect that is a wikilink to a subsection within an article.
In a better world wikilinks to subsections within articles would be fully supported. But this technique is only partially supported now.
What doesn't work includes:
  1. Watchlists -- you can't put a subsection of an existing article on your watchlist;
  2. The "what links here" button doesn't know which incoming links were actually aimed at a subsection heading;
  3. Robust -- one of the huge advantages properly formed wikilinks have over the more primitive uni-directional links supported by raw http is that they don't break when someone changes the name of the target. Wikimedia's mechanism for renaming an article leaves a redirect behind.

    But even the most trivial changes to a section heading will silently break all the improperly formed wikilinks that point to it. Even changes in spacing or punctuation will silently break those links.

    Fans of this technique gloss over its really terrible problems, claiming that if everyone left a warning, at every section heading that was the target of a complicated wikilink, informing other contributors that changing the wording of the section heading -- why then using this technique would never be a problem.

    I have made over 70,000 edits, I have NEVER seen anyone leave this kind of heads-up.

    Heck, we can't even get people to consistently leave meaningful, civil, useful edit summaries.

  4. The "back" button doesn't work consistently when the reader has just followed a link to a subsection heading. When a reader has followed a link to a subsection heading clicking "back" doesn't take them back to where they were before they clicked on the link. Rather, they have to click twice. This is a serious problem since readers should have a seamless experience. Readers rarely know they are not clicking on a link to an article. So they won't know why the back button doesn't work.
In my opinion, given the strengths and limitations of our current system, any topic that is significant enough to merit a link merits an article of its own. I want to replace Long Branch loop with a full article. I think it is significant enough it merits one. As for the redirects, for the other loops, that aren't as notable as the Long Branch loop? Until they have an article of their own I don't think any of them should redirect to a section heading either.
Can I ask what it would take to convince you to avoid using this problematic technique? Geo Swan (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the spirit of cooperation I am simply making you aware of the existing redirect and section. Why do you choose to be argumentative when there is no argument to be found? I frigging agree with you and I am trying to help! Jeez! Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I didn't thank you for the heads-up. My apologies. Thanks.
Why did I choose to explain what I thought was wrong with how Long Branch Loop redirected to Toronto streetcar loops#Long Branch Loop? Well, you created it.
If, in the 3.5 years since then, you have turned against that technique? That's terrific! In that case please ignore my explanation above. Geo Swan (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you old enough to remember the Jane Loop? I remember the loop at Jane and Bloor as a significant one. If I recall correctly, it had multiple streetcar lines that looped there, and a half a dozen bus routes. I think the loop at the end of the St Clair line may merit an article of its own.
I had a plan to ride every line, with a day pass, so I could get off and snap a panorama or two of every existing loop. Geo Swan (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A bus leaving the TTC's Jane loop.
  • Here is a non-free image of the Jane Loop, as I remember it. I can see something from this picture I didn't understand at the time. The Jane Loop had two concentric loops. Streetcars used the inner loop, and entered their loop in the opposite direction of the buses and trolley buses that used the outer loop, so the doors opened onto the same covered platforms.
I think the image to the right confirms my childhood memory that at least half a dozen routes looped there. Geo Swan (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I came to Toronto just after those old streetcar routes had been replaced by the subway. There were still trolley buses on many routes and the St. Clair car still went up Mount Pleasant. There might have been the remnants of some others, but I never saw them. I searched for a better quality version of the picture shown on the right from the City of Toronto Archives, but what they have has all the same flaws. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Islington Station

[edit]

Since there are many places that could be called Islington Station, it has been converted to a disambiguation page. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Street

[edit]

Thanks for bringing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Street to my attention. As you might have noticed, I closed the debate with an outcome of redirect, so the article has not been deleted and you are free to copy its content over to your userspace. The article history is available here. When I redirected the page in January 2006, this was the most recent revision. I think the current redirect target has more content than that revision, but you are free to userfy that revision or any other revision of the article as you like. Johnleemk | Talk 02:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt response. Geo Swan (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Ibrahim Othman Ibrahim Idris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Department of Defense, Department of Justice and Military Commissions Act
Fire Fighter (fireboat) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Greenport, New York

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Autumn Leaf photo

[edit]

Hi Geo Swan, I think I will submit the OTRS only when I'm free. RL and exams are taking up a whole lot of my time now, as seen from my reduced activity. But well, you might have seen that Bonkers has certified, and even Ritchie has made a rough estimate, and my age's about there. So, I hope you can remove from your Flickr, since I think mistakes should be forgiven. PS- I'm actually giving you a chance to prove your courtesy. You have snubbed my hand of courtesy by rejecting that FPC nom offer. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 05:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AK, among your weaknesses as a contributor to WMF projects is your unwillingness or inability to use diffs. It took me a while to figure out that you were responding to this comment I left. Bonkers responses: [1], [2]. Ritchie333's responses: [3], [4]. You failed to use diffs in your deletion request, and that was an unnecessary burden on those weighing in there. If you end up continuing to participate on WMF projects, please learn how to use diffs, and please use them.
As a matter of principle I think we should never accept claims like yours that aren't substantiated via an OTRS ticket. What I have found, at various {{afd}}, is that someone will say something like: "Imagine I was the subject of this article, and I said: 'Help! Delete this article! It is putting my life at risk!'"' People read {{afd}} with such little attention that it is pretty common for participants to misread those comments as if the actual subject had claimed the article put their life at risk. Sometimes someone does make the claim they are the subject of the article. People who make these claims almost never take the obvious step of confirming their identity via OTRS. So, as a matter of principle, I think we should always ignore real world claims made by individuals who won't confirm that their real world claims via OTRS.
I don't think you were paying attention, and don't understand that good faith participants in the deletion discussions weren't sure they understood why you initiated that request in the first place. What it sounded like is that you wanted the ego gratification of having the image becoming an "FP" here on en.wiki -- and that you thought it couldn't be an FP on en.wiki, if it was hosted on the commons. FP -- is that short for "featured picture"?
  1. So, the recognition that your photo was being used on dozens of projects wasn't ego gratification enough for you?
  2. Did you actually confirm that the image had to be on en.wiki, not the commons, for you to qualify for this recognition?
  3. Various people asked if special provision couldn't be made so that the image was hosted both on the en.wiki adn the commons.
  4. You seem to have given absolutely zero consideration to the inconvenience you would be imposing on those maintaining the articles on the non-English projects. Frankly although I first read about this a couple of days ago I think it shows a disregard for the efforts of other people I still find shocking.
If your original justification for requesting deletion was solely so you could get the ego gratification of having your image made a featured picture that seems entirely too trivial a reason for all the drama you demanded.
I honestly don't have a clue as to what you mean by "PS- I'm actually giving you a chance to prove your courtesy. You have snubbed my hand of courtesy by rejecting that FPC nom offer." Exactly what is this "FPC nom offer"? Exactly what is it you think I should have done to "accept" your offer?
Perhaps the most important point is your comments about removing your image from everywhere it was used on other projects. Your comments seem to imply that you tried removing it from where it was being used on some projects, and couldn't due to a lack of appropriate permissions. Your comments strongly implied that you did succeed in removing your image from being used on other projects. I don't think you appreciate what an enormous assault on the integrity of all the WMF projects this was.
If your want to restore people's trust I think your first step would be restore all the instances where your removed your image from use on other projects. Geo Swan (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I don't need ego.
  2. I appreciate your offer to remove my pictures from Flickr, considering I was a minor. But, you still need to work on respecting and forgiving others for their mistakes, as seen from [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] and [10].
  3. You claim that I understood what rights I was releasing. As a matter of fact, I understood it, but not fully. I did not think about it as a whole, and how severe the consequences of releasing it under that license were. You say that I have so many edits, so I should understand the copyright and stuff. You say that you have looked through my contribs, so ask yourself frankly, how many edits I have done are related to files and copyrights? I'm also just a minor, so how well do you think I can understand these copyright and law stuff? Anyway, if I were to upload any image in future, I will ensure that I fully understand what I'm doing, so I don't have to try clawing back anything.
✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Well, if it wasn't the ego gratification of having your photo promoted as an "FP", why did you nominate it for deletion in the first place? If your actions aren't ego driven, why did you think getting your way on deletion was more important than the extreme inconvenience to those using the image on other wikis if it were deleted from the commons?
  2. No, sorry, I don't agree that I have been disrespectful to you, nor do I agree that forgiveness is in order. I am showing you the courtesy of treating you as someone who will eventually act responsibly, once his mistakes have been pointed out. Here is my suggestion, why don't you first commit yourself to acting responsibly, then actually start acting responsibly, and once you have done that, then suggest forgiveness?

    I pointed out that you broadly hinted that you started going to other WMF projects, planning go to the articles that used your image, and remove it uses from those articles, so you could then claim the image wasn't in use, and since it was no longer in use, it was eligible to be considered for courtesy deletion. I am frankly still shocked that you thought it would be OK for you to do this. I am still shocked that you do not recognize that this gives the appearance of selfishness and oblivious to the inconvenience imposed on others.

    I have asked you, twice already, to openly acknowledge on how many WMF projects you tried to remove the butterfly image -- adn succeeded. Two of your messages described how you couldn't removed the image from some articles on some sties, because you didn't have the right permissions. These two messages strongly implied you succeeded in removing the image from other sites. You want to act responsbily, accept responsibility, so you can ask for forgiveness? OK, pick one:

    1. "I'm sorry, I did remove the image from some articles on non-English WMF projects -- but when I realized that was a mistake I reverted myself."
    2. "I'm sorry, I did remove the image from some articles on non-English WMF projects -- and I will start reverting those edits as soon as I can."
    3. "I'm sorry, I succeeded on removing the image from hundreds, or dozens of article on other wikis, but I did so as an IP contributor, and I don't have a record of what I now recognize as serious vandalism."
    4. "I'm sorry, I succeeded on removing the image from about half a dozen or less article on other wikis, but I did so as an IP contributor, and I don't have a record of what I now recognize as serious vandalism. I stopped when I realized I wouldn't be able to make a clean sweep."
    5. "I'm sorry, I recognize I did imply I committed a serious act of vandalism. But actually I found right away I wouldn't have the right permissions, so I stopped before I succeeded in removing the image from any article on any non-English project."
    6. "I'm sorry, I recognize I did imply I committed a serious act of vandalism. I was bluffing. I didn't actually get around to trying to remove the image. I realize that implying I did was still highly disruptive."
  3. The expectation on all of us is that we will all do our best to do whatever we do here responsibly, civilly and competently. Some years ago there was a contributor who didn't use a wiki-ID, he hopped from IP address to another, had been doing so so long he had people who could recognize and admire his work. Why did he use IP addresses, not establish a wiki-ID. The note he left on the talk pages of those IP addresses, to the best of my recollection, said it was his way of coping with a serious mental health issues. IIRC impulse control was one of the problems he acknowledged.

    I am giving you the same advice I gave him. IIRC he said contributing to the wikipedia helped his mental health recovery. Your supporters have asserted that contributing to WMF projects is good experience for you. Everyone is going to be happy, if that guy's mental health is helped by his contribution, and your contribution is good experience for you -- so long as those contributions are consistently civil, competent, responsible.

    But the WMF projects are not therapy, nor are they a training program. Building an encyclopedia has to be our pre-eminent goal.

    We are all volunteers here. No one is sent by their therapist, or parole officer. No one is sent by their parents or teachers. What this means is that those of us challenged by mental health challenges, or youthful inexperience, should feel the same obligations as everyone else. Since we are all volunteers, we should only contribute when and where we are confident we can do so responsibly, civilly, and competently. Since our confidence can be misplaced all of us, including those of us with youthful inexperience or mental health challenges, have to be open to feedback from others that our efforts have fallen short.

    I think your efforts have fallen short. Worse, I think the comments at WP:ANI show other people have tried to get you to understand your efforts have fallen short, and you have been unwilling or unable to recognize that feedback or to take it seriously.

    A year or more after I gave that guy this advice he left a note on my talk page, telling me that, after some consideration, he realized I was right, he was now able to control his impulses, and he had established a wiki-ID, and was able to make his contributions more normally.

    In the file deletion discussion I was not the first person to point out to you that claiming youthful inexperience would call into question all your earlier edits.

With regard to what your 20,000 edits have to do with whether you understood the intellectual property rights you give away with a creative commons license -- right above the "save page" button you are warned: "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." You had 20,000 opportunites to read that, and figure out what "irrevocably agree to release" means. What did you think it meant? Geo Swan (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not gonna waste too much of my precious time responding to your harrassment and attacks, as well as false assumptions. I have better things to do on Wikipedia now, so I'm just telling you, mistakes can, and should be forgiven. Anyway, after thinking about it, I have decided that I still want all my photos to be deleted first. However, this is to give me peace of mind, so that I can take my time read through all the available licenses, comprehend them fully, clarify anything if need be, and then think about whether I'm fine with them, before uploading any further images (or even the deleted ones) back to Wikipedia. I think that should be fair enough? Because remember, I really want to contribute some good images to Wikipedia, but all I need now is some time to reconsider, and deleting the images will make me able to reconsider better. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 13:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you ever heard the aphorism "Don't shoot the messenger"? I do not believe I am attacking you or harassing you. Now that people are taking a look at the quality of your work lots of people are concerned. Other people warned you. You blew them off. You ignored them. That was a mistake.
Mistakes should be forgiven when the individual who made the mistake demonstrates they understand what they did wrong -- so other people can be confident they won't just keep repeating the same mistake. Since you haven't come close to owning up to all your mistakes forgiving you would be a mistake. The chance that you will repeat mistakes you have been unwilling or unable to recognize and/or acknowledge were mistakes is quite high. See User:Geo Swan/on apologies. Geo Swan (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I already knew about it almost 10 days ago. Currently discussing with Jimbo through email.
  • Yup, that was what one of the Commoners (not you) told me - image must be unused. Too bad, Liamdavies did not read carefully. And BTW, you have lots to prove if you want to regain my respect and trust, as you have wasted all the chances I've given you. Too bad. :/ You are currently on my user blacklist. I will be holding an editor review soon, but you will not be allowed to take part in it. Even if you do, all comments will be deleted, even if someone else posts it on your behalf. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't accuse me of not reading properly, I wouldn't have posted here, but as you've mentioned me I feel it is now my right. You misread this statement: ...we could delete out of courtesy. This, however requires that the file is unused. as if you delete all uses it can be deleted, that as I pointed out at the delete request after you made the actions described in this post are inappropriate and against the spirit of a courtesy delete, this is why I properly reverted them, they where WP:POINTY and only there to advanced a DR, which is not an acceptable excuse to remove an image. No where either here or here did anyone say that you could have the file deleted if you removed it from all uses, what they said was that it would be eligible if it weren't used, you drew the false conclusion, do not draw my comprehension abilities into this. Your further protestation here just shows how little you actually comprehend what people tell you. You would do well to listen to what others say much more, pay attention, and you can become a productive editor, the current path you're going down is to an INDEF. For you're own interests on wiki please calm down, listen to what those at ANI are advising you and reflect on your own behaviour (and how this has not served you well). Finally, Geo Swan, you've made your point, Arctic Kangaroo clearly doesn't want the photos on your flickr feed, they are already on commons, for civility and calm please delete them. Liamdavies (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kena indef already", what does this mean? If you're referring to your indef on commons, I know, and you should keep an eye on that, it's raising some pretty drastic options (which make me uncomfortable). I was more speaking about ENWP, comments like those that you made above do not come off as WP:CIVIL, I understand you're annoyed, but biting won't help, it will only lower peoples opinion of you. Already the ANI has moved from a conversation about a topic ban to one admin advocating a block (not topic, but full ENWP) due to your behaviour. Given that it would be very wise to do as I said above: "please calm down, listen to what those at ANI are advising you and reflect on your own behaviour (and how this has not served you well)". Also, I don't know Geo Swan, we are just both editors that noticed the same thing, I wouldn't have posted anything here (or it's twin on Commons) if it were not for your behaviour. Liamdavies (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The context is:
  1. 2013-06-09, AK uploads to commons a very fine picture, using a cc-by-sa license, with no added riders;
  2. 2013-07-12, This image is in use on dozens of WMF projects. But AK wants the image to be chosen as "an FP" on en.wiki, and thinks it has to be removed from the commons in order to qualify for this honor. He is prepared to have people using those other WMF projects have a red-link, instead of his picture, so he qualifies for consideration as "an FP".
  3. 2013-07-13, other contributors inform AK that the cc-by-sa is irrevocable. [11] He is told the image might be considered for a courtesy deletion, except it is in use on other wikiprojects.
  4. 2013-07-13, AK visits an unknown number of WMF projects, and manually removes instances where the image was being used in articles there, as he did to fr:Doleschallia bisaltide.
  5. 2013-07-13, expresses frustration with technical difficulties he encountered when he tried to remove all non-en.wiki uses of the image. [12], [13].
  6. 2013-07-13, another contributor notices (some of (?)) AK's removals of instances where the image was being used, and reverts them.
  7. 2013-07-15, as I read through the discussion, I notice AK's two comments about the problems he encountered removing instances of the images on other WMF projects, and voiced my concerns about it.
  8. 2013-07-27, AK's comment strongly implies he thought he still WP:OWNed the image, in spite of releasing it under a cc-by-sa license, and was authorized to remove instances where it was used -- without explanation or discussion. It strongly implies he didn't understand why the other contributor thought he was authorized to revert him. Geo Swan (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow...thank you for removing my photos from your Flickr. I was just about to report you just now, although I still have lots of work to do on the haze article. And another thing, even if my images are deleted, do not ever upload them again. If I want them here, I will upload them myself. And also, consider the licence invalid, so don't go sharing my photo or showing them to the whole world again. Don't use my photo as well. I will put my trust in you on that. Nevertheless, you still have work to do if you want to get off my blacklist. Cheers. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm. "Consider the license invalid..." I am on record with most people who have weighed in -- that the legal authority of minors to release their intellectual property is sufficiently questionable that licenses they have granted shouldn't be taken at face value. I still think every person who wants a real-world claim taken at face value should confirm their real world identity through the trusted, confidential OTRS process. So far as I am concerned that license remains valid until your age is confirmed. As I wrote before, to preserve your privacy I suggest you use OTRS to confirm your age.
With regard to earning your trust back -- do you know what Mark Twain said about respecting his father's wisdom?
He wrote that, (paraphrasing from memory) when he was fourteen, he thought his father didn't know very much, because he had remarkably bad advice for him, but, by the time he was 21, he was amazed at how much his father had learned.
On the premise that you are still at school, I'll explain this. Mark Twain is one of the most important figures in American literature. He is known for phrasing wisdom through humour. Twain wasn't really suggesting his father went through a huge increase in wisdom. Rather he was tacitly acknowledging that his father's advice had always been wise, and that his fourteen year-old self had to grow wiser before he could appreciate the wisdom of his father's advice.
So, forgive me, but rather than trying to guess how to earn your trust back, and making an effort to do so, I think I have the option of doing nothing. I think I have the option of waiting, and, who knows, like young Mark Twain, you may change your mind, and decide that the people who have tried to tell you they had concerns actually had points you should have tried to understand. Several people voiced their concerns, prior to my attempts to voice mine, and several people voiced concerns after I did. The record seems to show you blithely ignored or discounted most of this advice.
You admonished LiamDavies, for reverting your edits on the non-English wikis. That is troubling. You have defenders who write that you realize you made mistakes, and are contrite. But I think practically every experienced contributor will agree that LiamDavies was completely authorized to revert your edits, and that there never was a justification in policy for your excisions. What I am very sorry to observe is that, this comment seems to show that you still do not recognize those excisions as a mistake, and that you are not contrite. Geo Swan (talk) 10:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record. WP:OWN is Wikipedia policy on articles, which are collaborative works. Arctic Kangaroo owns his butterfly pictures and no Wikipedia policy can take away his fundamental right. Wikipedia (and Commons) were granted a licence to use those pictures, no more than that. Colin°Talk 11:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

[edit]

Information icon Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is WP:COMPETENCE problem with Arctic Kangaroo on AfC. Thank you. —Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Imprint (newspaper), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sinhalese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Geo_Swan/archive/2013-07&oldid=1082542973"